Stackhouse v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Stackhouse’s] action stemmed from an internal investigation undertaken by the State Police in connection with [Stack-house’s] application for a job promotion. [Stackhouse] maintained in her complaint that certain State Police employees involved in conducting the investigation were permitted to delve improperly into her personal affairs, including her private, inter-personal relationships. While [Stackhouse] did not contend that Commissioner Evanko or Deputy Commissioner Coury personally inquired into such private matters or instructed others to do so, she asserted that those officials failed to ensure that the individuals conducting the investigation were properly trained to inquire only into areas which were appropriate and relevant to the subject of the investigation. She also alleged that, even after she made Commissioner Evanko aware of the nature of the ongoing investigative activities, he failed to take any corrective action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stackhouse v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Police

2. “The sum and substance of Appellant’s complaint, then, is that her privacy and reputational interests were invaded when state police officials unlawfully delved into her intimate inter-personal relationships during an internal affairs investigation, and that she is entitled to compensation accordingly. In these circumstances, we do not believe the inclusion of a count for declaratory or injunctive relief premised upon the same events can properly be understood to transform the complaint from one sounding in trespass into the type of matter contemplated by Fawber [v. Cohen, 516 Pa. 352 , 532 A.2d 429 (1987)], or by the Legislature, as belonging within the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Commonwealth

3. “(a). General Rule. — The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions or proceedings: (1) Against the Commonwealth government, including any officer thereof, acting in his official capacity, except: [[Image here]] (v) actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass as to which the Commonwealth government formerly enjoyed sovereign or other immunity and actions ,or proceedings in the nature of assumpsit relating to such actions or proceedings in the nature of trespass, [[Image here]] (c) Ancillary matters. — The Commonwealth Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases of mandamus ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. PA Department of Corrections